I am so much better at watching SCII than playing it lol. I did play some ai matches today, beat easy twice, lost to medium once... such a noob. There is SO MUCH SHIT GOING ON.

What should young people do with their lives today? Many things, obviously. But the most daring thing is to create stable communities in which the terrible disease of loneliness can be cured. -Kurt Vonnegut

Seems like whenever I check out the forums of any starcraft website, terrans think terrans are UP, toss think toss are UP, and zerg think zerg are UP.

What should young people do with their lives today? Many things, obviously. But the most daring thing is to create stable communities in which the terrible disease of loneliness can be cured. -Kurt Vonnegut

Metaphysician wrote:Seems like whenever I check out the forums of any starcraft website...

There's your mistake. SC-related forums are pretty much nothing but bitching about balance. And by "balance", I mean: "it's possible for my opponent to win, so they need to buff my race/nerf the other races."

TL has some good discussion if you can learn to ignore the whining. Don't go to Blizz's official forums, though, it's NOTHING but constant bitching.

Meaux_Pas: Is it fucking Taint Sunday or something?liza: Screw y'all, I'm going to the moon

I am thinking of getting this game. Should I? And do I need both wings of liberty and hear of the swarm?

I know they each have their own campaign but do I need both to play online?

I have never played online rts's before. What is the best way to learn how to play? Can I be successful with just trial and error or will I need to read stuff and learn a bunch of stats? What resources would you recommend to a complete n00b to learn the basics? Should I play the campaign first or just jump into online play?

HotS requires WoL to play. You may still be able to play WoL by itself online, but it's probably almost dead if you try.

I may recommend the starter edition which is basically a free demo. You can play the first few missions as well as one or two multiplayer maps for free.

I definitely recommend playing the campaign first, but there are also "training" AI and missions you can play. They'll teach you some things like very basic macro and micro. If you want to get good at it, basically it takes a lot of practice, and looking up videos like Day[9] isn't a bad place to start. I think these require the full game, but I've never used the starter edition so some of it may be available.

Eomund wrote:I am thinking of getting this game. Should I? And do I need both wings of liberty and hear of the swarm?

I know they each have their own campaign but do I need both to play online?

I have never played online rts's before. What is the best way to learn how to play? Can I be successful with just trial and error or will I need to read stuff and learn a bunch of stats? What resources would you recommend to a complete n00b to learn the basics? Should I play the campaign first or just jump into online play?

The great thing about SC2 is its user-created content, and I think that has actually outgrown significantly then the Game's RTS element. (More people playing custom maps then matchmaking)

For example there's star-striker (a football game in Sc2), There's Star battle, and My fav ... Mafia (a Party game)

Xeio wrote:HotS requires WoL to play. You may still be able to play WoL by itself online, but it's probably almost dead if you try.

I may recommend the starter edition which is basically a free demo. You can play the first few missions as well as one or two multiplayer maps for free.

I definitely recommend playing the campaign first, but there are also "training" AI and missions you can play. They'll teach you some things like very basic macro and micro. If you want to get good at it, basically it takes a lot of practice, and looking up videos like Day[9] isn't a bad place to start. I think these require the full game, but I've never used the starter edition so some of it may be available.

Well, I've all of the campaign I can do in the demo and some vs ai stuff.

I have a basic strategy that seems to be working well. (I have beaten harder AI with it).

Spoilered for longness

Spoiler:

What I liked about terrans in sc1 was that they could put up a very good defensive line that would be almost unpenetrable and it seems they have the same ability in sc2. If I tried to just turtle in my own base I will run out of minerals very fast. So I got the idea to put up a defensive line in my opponents natural. I think this is similar to a proxy rush, but I am not exactly sure what that is.

About when I put in the first supply, I send out an scv to scout. Once I've found where they are a build a barracks just outside their natural. I send over another scv to build another barracks. I then put up 2 or 3 bunkers filled with marines inside their natural. I then get a factory or two and start pumping the siege tanks. I try to put the tanks so they blow away anything coming down the ramp out of their base. I usually get some reapers to jump up and spot for the tanks. For aa, I build an engineering bay and some missile turrets. By now, I am looking to expand and usually do so in my opponents 3rd expansion. I then creep up with the tanks, turrets and bunkers. Usually this is good enough to hold whatever they can throw. I sometimes get a couple of vikings up to help with aa and spotting. If I need another expansion I will go to my natural. Before long my tanks are hitting their structures and they are running out of cash.

It seems to work pretty well, but any comments or suggestions would be great.

There is one hole that I see, but it hasn't been exploited yet. They could fly some workers out of their base and set up a new one anywhere or the map. They could then rush my original base as it has zero defense.

pick map with islands, move to island, use long range units and autoturrets/pdds to tank for you while vikings and missileturret dps, your energy renews but their minerals do not; also it's nerve-wracking as hell

Decide to have a quick match last night before heading to the pub. 1v1 Z(me)vP.

He tries to cannon rush me, I spotted it and defended it as by the time he had his first cannons down I had a spine crawler, second hatch and my roach warren. He can't touch me, I destroy his probe and the cannons and with my remaining roaches I head out to finish him off. I get to his base: cannons everywhere with 3 voidrays. Do as much damage as I can, fall back and get hydras. Already upgrading missiles and armor.

I manage to keep him contained to three bases as I take all the others, I have a massive pool of resources and now I sense I'm playing with my food.

Played too long.

I go in for the kill and he has cannons everywhere, with tempests and more voids. My hydras can handle the air units and roaches do decent damage; again, still not enough to break him.

Now here comes the awful part. What I should have done was think: He has air units and cannons galore, lets get some broodlords and corrupters and finish this, you have time as your roaches and hydras have him completely contained.

What I actually did: Lets build an ultralisk den to break through the cannons and use roaches and zerglings as bait whilst my hydras finish off their air units.

Within 10 minutes of that decision I had died as he flew his voids and tempests around my blockade and picked off my spore crawlers and destroyed my bases.

I've played a similar game to that as far back as the beta and as recently as a few weeks ago. SC2 is very much designed around 3 base income being ideal and around asymmetric army power. Thus, a protoss who can get to three bases can sit on it until they build up an unstoppable army. He might have been playing with you the whole time rather than the other way around. Maybe even a troll that games the system to play weaker players. You can check their match history and see if any of their losses last for more than a minute, given that they would leave right away to accumulate 'fake' losses to make the match making think that they're lower than they are. To digress a little further, I've talked to several people who do that and they mostly seem to be borderline sociopaths. They've fed me ridiculous lies about why they do it and have little self-awareness, empathy, guilt, and all the other signs of sociopathy. Example:

Spoiler:

This guy asked me to spectate a bronze league bo5 and I wasn't doing anything so I agreed. He messages me after he won:

Notice how he was more focused on fishing for praise by asking what league he should be in, rather than any concern over my accusation or the bronze league player he just happily smashed in games very similar to what Sytri played. As for him leaving "a few" games, I checked at least 30 games in his match history and every single loss was less than a minute, roughly 60% winrate. If he's not a compulsive liar then he's gullible and insane. Regardless, he set up the bo5 that he knew he was going to win and wanted an audience. I have other examples, but... anyway...

Funnily enough, brood lord and corruptor probably wouldn't have worked either. Void rays demolish corruptors and tempests were specifically created and designed to kill brood lords. It sounds strange but if they're void ray heavy, infestors work wonders. Chain fungal can kill as many void rays as they decide to clump up for you. If you go that route don't forget neural either, in case there's a carrier follow-up or other juicy neural targets. Equally strange, queens are the most cost efficient antiair unit for zerg and their speed and production rate are the only issues.

Swarm hosts can peck away at them while they're trying to amass their army, and as long as you have plenty of antiair over your swarm hosts (spores, queens, hydra, corruptor) it becomes a long slugfest where you should slowly gain an advantage.

Delaying or denying the third is a good investment (burrow helps). The strategy relies a lot on securing the third fairly early. Sometimes they'll get so desperate to get the third that you can slip a group of lings into their main. Otherwise you can try and kill them somewhere around 12-14 minutes where they're at their weakest. Ventral sacks or nydus is really handy for that. For example, drop a ton of zerglings into the main, and when they come to defend it hit the third with roaches and hydras, stringing his army around while destroying vital structures. It's very difficult to execute but it can be a blast.

Just be sure if you decide to do any of that that you commit to it. Doing a little bit of everything will usually be too ineffectual, and when protoss gets that maxed army it really can be unstoppable for zerg.

Got accused of six pooling last night because I had a lot better control than my other zerg opponent. My overlord was at his main before he had a spawning pool. At which time I had a pool and a hatchery. Felt good to play a match where I was clearly better and not just being messed around. Hoping I get get some more game time in this weekend and get into silver at least.

Yakk wrote:How do you get to the point where you are six-base to their one-base?

I mean, in the time it takes for them to mine out, how (and why?) do you manage to invest that much in bases? Are they on their second base?

I was Zerg vs a Terran in WoL Bronze. Terran never threw anything at me, so I just kept expanding. TBH, it says nothing about my skill but of their incompetence; I just thought it was funny that they accused me of cheating.

Edit: Also, I was bad enough to not know how to fight it

cemper93 wrote:Dude, I just presented an elaborate multiple fraction in Comic Sans. Who are you to question me?

I thought for sure that last pylon they built was going to be a cannon. I mean, really, why bother making another pylon when you see that you are being all-in'd?In any case, nice video, and a rather amusing turnabout.

Look, you know it's serious when a bunch of people in full armor and gear come charging in to fight a pond of chickens - Steax

Just played several amusing 2v2s where the core strategy was to send at least two starting workers for harass while macroing behind it. We ended up facing and beating an axiom and complexity GM 2v2 team before we even got placed. We're now rocking platinum league 2v2.

Sytri wrote:Decide to have a quick match last night before heading to the pub. 1v1 Z(me)vP.

He tries to cannon rush me, I spotted it and defended it as by the time he had his first cannons down I had a spine crawler, second hatch and my roach warren. He can't touch me, I destroy his probe and the cannons and with my remaining roaches I head out to finish him off. I get to his base: cannons everywhere with 3 voidrays. Do as much damage as I can, fall back and get hydras. Already upgrading missiles and armor.

I manage to keep him contained to three bases as I take all the others, I have a massive pool of resources and now I sense I'm playing with my food.

Played too long.

I go in for the kill and he has cannons everywhere, with tempests and more voids. My hydras can handle the air units and roaches do decent damage; again, still not enough to break him.

Now here comes the awful part. What I should have done was think: He has air units and cannons galore, lets get some broodlords and corrupters and finish this, you have time as your roaches and hydras have him completely contained.

What I actually did: Lets build an ultralisk den to break through the cannons and use roaches and zerglings as bait whilst my hydras finish off their air units.

Within 10 minutes of that decision I had died as he flew his voids and tempests around my blockade and picked off my spore crawlers and destroyed my bases.

A lesson learned but damn was it painful.

Actually, you'd be surprised just how horrible corruptors are vs. void rays... You should make swarm hosts to siege down the cannon lines and just queen/hydra/infestor to deal with his air units.

Ultralisks do better against Void Rays than Corruptors, and they are armored! (I mean, Corruptors just lose, but Ultralisks lose and destroy some buildings first).

Heck, Battlecruisers do better against VR than Corruptors (supply for supply they win (3:2 ratio), gas-for-gas they lose (2:1 ratio)), but that is academic (as a protoss will mix in some tempests, and (tempests > VR) against BCs -- similar DPS as an aligned VR, 2.5x the range, 2x the durability).

One of the painful things about our time is that those who feel certainty are stupid, and those with any imagination and understanding are filled with doubt and indecision - BR

I would like to opint out that the corruptors were for the other flyers he had and to morph to brrodlords to take down his cannons. I had enough hydras to keep his voids at a minimum for a while. My problem was that I went all ground for some reason rather than adding air units.

Is that right thinking or should I have just played better on the ground?

I would say that for the most part, flying and ground units aren't different theatres of war. In Supreme Commander there's land, air and navy, and they can assist one another but they all generally exist in their own bubble and fight the opponent's counterpart. In SC2, the difference in a flying and ground unit is much more muted, it's more about the utility and pathing mechanics (unit stacking mainly, a trade-off of being vulnerable to aoe and having all units firing simultaneously) of having a flying unit and having the right tool for the right job. If hydras were flying units or void rays were ground units, it wouldn't make too much of a difference as to whether or not you would want to build them... At least not as much as I assume you think.

I've seen people say that they're going to "go air" or "go ground" but it has never made much sense. Every single unit in the game has a very different application, and having strength in the air or on the ground usually doesn't account for too much.

That said, did you use the right tools? I don't know. Verbal communication of a game of SC2 isn't sufficient enough for me to even begin to discuss that, especially across the wide array of skill levels. If it is just about winning though, chances are that it wasn't so much about the units you chose to make, but the choices you neglected to make in other areas much earlier in the game. Idle larva, as an example.

Koa wrote:I've seen people say that they're going to "go air" or "go ground" but it has never made much sense. Every single unit in the game has a very different application, and having strength in the air or on the ground usually doesn't account for too much.

When you're not playing against Protoss, a flying attack against an enemy base with heavy ground defences or a ground attack against one with good anti-air blanks most of their defences, while a mixed attack group will always get hurt by defensive fire.

Of course, if your opponent is any good, then their defences will be set up so that they don't just crumble to a relatively light specialist attack...

In a team game, a protoss player specializing in air, robo or templar units lets them climb the tech tree and get upgrades much faster. Three players each doing one of those three branches can generate an "end game" mixed and upgraded army far faster than three players doing all three branches.

Against Zerg and Protoss, the enemy has to invest a sigificant amount of effort getting units that can shoot at air. Protoss needs air units or stalkers: stalkers, other than shooting up, suck, and barely win against Protoss VR or Phoenix units anyhow. Robo tech for Protoss is nearly completely negated by a player "going air".

Zerg needs air units or Hydras. Zergs ability to adapt makes this less of a problem. On the other hand, Zerg mutalisk play gets completely shut down by Protoss phoenix, and without Phoenix the Zerg mutalisks are hard to deal with as a Protoss player.

Only Terran cares little if their targets are up or down, because Terran has only a few units that don't shoot up (tanks, hellions and bats, and marauders), their cheap unit is a ridiculously strong anti-air unit, and *every one* of their production buildings has a unit that shoots up.

One of the painful things about our time is that those who feel certainty are stupid, and those with any imagination and understanding are filled with doubt and indecision - BR

Yakk wrote:In a team game, a protoss player specializing in air, robo or templar units lets them climb the tech tree and get upgrades much faster. Three players each doing one of those three branches can generate an "end game" mixed and upgraded army far faster than three players doing all three branches.

I agree. That's true of protoss overall and most evident in PvP. Pick a tech and put it to use immediately. More tech is more expensive but expands your versatility, and the point at which that expensive is acceptable is dependent upon the economic (one base, one tech choice preferably) and strategic (I need observers or I'm dead) state of the game.

In 1v1, a few tempests in the late game are great because of their incredible range and not because they strengthen your air prowess. It's the utility of the unit, and the fact that it flies is fairly unimportant. It could be another tag like "light" or "biological". No one says "I'm going light units".

In 4v4 it's much more murky and I would probably only build tempests to counter the opponent. I would prefer more blunt force than utility.

Yakk wrote:Against Zerg and Protoss, the enemy has to invest a sigificant amount of effort getting units that can shoot at air.

Now that is mostly a team game thing, especially 4v4. With expectedly poor communication and being (by yourself) incapable of knowing and focusing on what the other seven players are doing at any given time, a bunch of void rays can come out of the fog of war and ruin your day. Trying to fight off what you couldn't have been prepared for is the crapshoot of 4v4 and does make terran look much more versatile in the case of shooting up. A marine walked into a bar...

When you can possibly prepare for it, ironically, TvT has the highest strategic benefit of having air units and air control. Being able to pick away at medivacs and shut down drops (directly on the army or otherwise), provide tank vision, and pave the way for banshees or battlecruisers makes viking numbers fairly important at times.

The utility that the unit provides and how it interacts with the opponent's capability usually becomes a far more important factor than whether or not it can fly. A two base sentry immortal all in wins against any sort of muta strategy despite the weak antiair. A chargelot timing can crush a stargate phoenix opening.

If you haven't seen those things you might have a strange idea of the reasons behind that. You might simulate equal supply and equal cost of mass phoenix numbers lifting mass zealots, calculating the most efficient number of simultaneous graviton beams, and overvaluing the importance of potential structural damages all while inside a vacuum. Of course I don't care if you want to spend your time simulating a bunch of nonsense, but maybe my "show-and-tell masturbation" comment from before makes a little more sense. Academic indeed; irrefutable yet irrelevant. It wouldn't look like that whatsoever. I'm pretty glad that the game isn't so simple. It would be solved in a week.

edit: Though... Now that I think about it... It does make a lot more sense if your whole perspective of the game is limited to the one base no expand, 4v4 monobattles thing you were doing when we played. Almost no economic or strategic variances. One unit, maybe two in the whole game per player clashing against the other... Hm.

edit2: Yeah. I went through the build orders of your games. Mass one unit, build workers haphazardly, expand when your macro slips too much, and then switch into your second unit until the game ends. If that's all you think SC2 is then it makes a lot of sense to me why you think what you say. I don't know why I didn't consider that sooner.

edit3: So, no reply. Then I would guess that this post looks like an ad hominem attack from an elitist asshole. Presuming it's right and you don't watch or play or think about the game apart from those that you play with your colleagues, it does make a big difference. You're correct in a very different context rather than misleading and inconsistent (things that make me bristle). I've got nothing against people playing the game in different ways, but talking about Fastest Map Possible strategies and never stipulating that they're for Fastest Map Possible... it's not the first assumption. Even saying "4v4" isn't enough context, as I said that it's far closer to monobattles with how you approach the game.

On a lighter note, those IEM finals games were entertaining... in a funny sort of way.

Spoiler:

Naniwa was playing extremely passively for some reason, and Life saw that as weakness and played very inefficiently. Naniwa would take incredibly cost efficient battles and win a game that Life wasn't taking seriously. The crowd goes wild.